The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ok, I looked everywhere for WP:RS and WP:N, including newspaper db's - none to be found. GHITS is minor, but arguement is noted. Although I tend to lean on the "keep" side, I can't find one good source or reason on this one (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

El Goonish Shive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No Gnews hits at all. Only secondary web source in the article is this which is not a RS. There appears to be a mention in a book on webcomics, but no telling how substantial it is. Simply being on Keenspot ≠ notability if no secondary sources exist. Last AFD was rent asunder by countless socks and required six section breaks. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 12:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Being on Keenspot does not meet specific notability guidelines for web comics, and regardless, the lack of reliable sources runs afoul of WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, see the link to the notability guidelines in my !vote below. PaleAqua (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A relatively prominent webcomic that's been around for a long time, updated regularly and published in 2 books. Needs further citations, maybe. Deletion? No. --Alex n (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs further citations? And where are they going to come from? Didn't you read the part about "no Gnews hits at all"? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest, I didn't read anything you wrote, as all the arguments were already lined out in the previous discussion (which I did read) and I'm just casting my vote here. No ill will toward you. Good luck though (honest). --Alex n (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless anybody can come up with some reliable sources. Given the current state of the article, I'm not exactly holding my breath. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - I have added the AfD header to Characters of El Goonish Shive. If there is a consensus to delete the main article then I'd find it unlikely that there would be one to keep the spin out. Guest9999 (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Appears to meet Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria, note that only one of the three is required. So per that policy just having been picked up by Keenspot is notable. Keenspot does not just publish any webcomic and has editorial oversite. Keenspot is a well-known and respected publisher. So I fully believe that Criteria #3 is meet and thus from the requirement "is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria", El Goonish Shive is notable. Any mentions in books, such as the bit in Campbell's The History of Webcomics, or in web news articles are only strengthen the notability. Having looked at the original nomination it looked more like it was a misplaced request for cleanup, and was closed as keep despite any presence of socks. PaleAqua (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether Keenspot is a "respected" medium or whether its members can be considered "independent" of it may be up for discussion however consensus has been found to delete current or former Keenspot hosted comics on several occasions (examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaming Guardians, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Pink Ponies, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashfield (webcomic), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeons & Denizens, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yirmumah, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete is a Pogo Stick, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sporkman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sore Thumbs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Suburban Jungle (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd and Penguin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vigilante, Ho!, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy in Love (comic), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God Mode). On criterion 3 Wikipedia:Notability (web) notes that, "Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion" - i.e. that "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". This is clearly not the case for a large proportion of Keenspot comics. Guest9999 (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems to be a bit of a change since last I looked. I haven't heard of most of those comics except for the suburban jungle, but it has been a long time since I've visited the keenspot site. As to the independence claim, note that El Goonish Shive did not originate with Keenspot but was picked up and run by keenspot for a while. In fact El Goonish Shive ended the distribution with Keenspot and are now published by 910CMX. Seems to me that the guidelines fit in this case.PaleAqua (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those deletion discussions are from between 2006 and 2009. I don't know how many of the comics started on Keenspot but several including Tod and Penguin and Vigilante, Ho! did not. I can find very little information on 910CMX which to me suggests it would not meet the criteria. Personally I think that criterion 3 is extended to mean more than is accepted by general consensus - if you look at the guideline for books (which would include paper comic books) it mentions nothing about being published by a respected publisher establishing notability. If publishing EGS in paper wouldn't make it notable without coverage I don't see why - the lesser commitment of - publishing it online automatically does. Keenspot is an online publisher of webcomics, Penguin Books is a (far more notable) offline publisher of paper books but being published by Penguin Books doesn't make a book notable without any third party sources or specific exceptional achievements. Guest9999 (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails Wikipedia:Notability, poorly sourced, lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. And per Guest9999's examples, clear consensus over many years of deletion discussions that these webcomics have not somehow auto-magically WP:INHERITED any kind of notability from this little-known publisher. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - I have something to share after this discussion is over, on the talk page of this discussion. ptmc2112 (talk | contributions) 15:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I originally was not going to have to vote delete when I first reviewed this AfD discussion because I was unable to find the Edutopia article, it had deadlinked, and based on my limited understading there was just little enough to make this article noteworthy. However, now that the dead link has been corrected, I feel that El Goonish Shive now falls on the other side of the line, and is once again keep worthy. I thank Guest9999 for finding that link. I am also voting keep because of its multi-year stint with Keenspot (which was the deciding factor in AfD I) as well as the books that it has had published (one of which I saw at a local Barnes and Noble), its 8+ years of updating fairly regularly and the fact that it has been referenced in many other comics as well as occasionally mentioned as inspiration for other comics getting started. Really, now that I start enumerating my reasons for voting keep, I think that even without the edutopia article this would have been a keep. Theturtlehermit (talk) 04:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Commentary - I will admit that this comic produces zero Google News hits...but then again neither does Megatokyo or Garfield (comic strip) for that matter. And WP:GHITS does state that Google hits can not be used as exclusive reasoning to prove or disprove noteability. However a rather quick google search for " "El Goonish Shive" -wikipedia -egscomics.com " yeilded over 10k hits, some of which lend toward noteability. For example: a review of EGS on College Jolt , Amazon's listing of EGS volume 1 , A tvtropes review of EGS , The Sequential tart review mentioned below , I shudder to think of it, but a fanfic page about EGS , shiveapedia, an EGS Wiki , The link cited at the start of this AfD , and a tangents review of EGS. This was all accomplished in a matter of 10 minutes worth of looking and 30 minutes worth of wikityping, while I do admit that not all of these articles meet the requirements of "reliable, independent sources" I feel that these do show a pattern of influence that is "notability." (One last thing I want to add, I may be scarred forever after finding the rule 34 EGS page that I didn't link here) Theturtlehermit (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are incorrect that Megatokyo has zero results on a Google News search. It has about 105 results. "Garfield" + "comic" returns about 8,550 results. Many of those results for Megatokyo and Garfield come form sources like The New York Times, Publishers Weekly, and the Washington Post, so they at least have the potential to meet our standards. In contrast, El Goonish Shive = zero. You are however correct that "Tangents" and "TV Tropes" and "The Webcomic Book Club" and all the others you list are not reliable sources. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The non-existant google news hits don't matter according to WP:GHITS. There seem to be enough reliable sources to prove notability to me. Narthring (talk • contribs) 22:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain which of them specifically, if any, do you feel show "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per Wikipedia:Notability? Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure. Specifically the Sequential Tart Web Zine review. The article is significant, non-trivial coverage in an independent source. Its merit as a reliable source could be called into question, but it seems to pass reliability to me from looking at the website.Narthring (talk • contribs) 20:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That looked like the best source by far to me, too, but it is not significant coverage (it's only 4 paragraphs), it does not look like a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (It's a Web zine that publishes reviews by apparently pseudonymous authors like "Jiffy Burke", "Wolfen Moondaughter" and "Michele Witchipoo"), It does not seem entirely independent of webcomics (I recognize the names of several webcomic artists among their contributors), and after all those concerns it is still a single source when multiple significant, reliable sources are generally needed to write an encyclopedia article. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. None of the references meet Wikipedia:Notability by any stretch of the imagination. I have looked at each of the sources and the very best of them are extremely insignificant (they, like Edutopia, are passing, trivial mentions or a few brief sentences with no detail). We need much, much better to write an encyclopedia article. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • you do know that adding the word "strong" in front of your comment doesn't make it count any more, right? Theturtlehermit (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You do know that "Strong Delete" is one of the valid !votes available in AfD discussions, right? Weak Keep, Keep, Delete, Strong Delete ... it's a veritable scale. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.